N RAJENDRAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contesting parties are respondents 1 and 2 in all these writ petitions. Though the cases are listed for admission, after notice to the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and private notice to the respondents, since pleadings are complete between the contesting parties, having regard to the urgency urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that traffic has been disrupted and public are put to great inconvenience and that pendency may result in delay in completing the time-bound programme, the matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

(2.) IN all these writ petitions, since common question of law and fact arise for consideration, they are taken up together and a common order is passed.

(3.) THE petitioner in W.P. No. 1310 of 1998 submitted his tender for the work in Serial No. 1(e) of the Tender Notice No. 54/CE/CN/97(A), dated 8-10-1997. THE value of the said work is Rs. 29.53 lakhs and an Earnest Money of Rs. 29, 600/- was required to be deposited alongwith the tender from which costed Rs. 658/-. THE petitioner in compliance with all the tender conditions submitted his rates for the work at Serial No. 1(e) and the sealed tenders were opened at the Office of respondent No. 2 on 11-1-1997 at 11.30 hrs. THEreafter, the tenderers were called for negotiations on 6-1-1998 before the Committee consisting of respondent No. 2 and two other members. THE rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest among, the rates quoted by all other tenders but still, the work at Serial No. 1(e) was awarded to respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2.